I hadn't realized. This does make me consider using alternatives more.
If you look at my post history you can see I’m always calling them out about how sketchy they are.
And LLM products Are new-ish. It suggests that Anthropic made federal government contracts a priority while OpenAI, Alphabet, AWS didn’t.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-gov-models-for-u-s-nat...
https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13756069-public-secto...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrq1vwe73po
> the Pentagon official told the BBC the current conflict between the agency and Anthropic is unrelated to the use of autonomous weapons or mass surveillance.
> The official added that the Pentagon would simultaneously label Anthropic as a supply chain risk.
*Supply chain risk*?
The BBC article seems to imply that the government wants to audit Anthropic.
This, coming at the same time those "distillation" claims were published, is all incredibly suspicious.
The US federal government is no longer a good faith actor acting on behalf of American citizens and following US law, but now an autonomous corporation aiming to “get the best deal” via maximum leverage.
Anthropic doesn’t want their software used for certain purposes, so they maintain approval/denial of projects and actions. I suspect the Pentagon doesn’t want limitations AND they dislike paying for software/service which can be withheld from them if they are found to be skirting the contractual terms.
And THAT is why the Pentagon is using maximum leverage (threatening Anthropic as a supply chain risk label).
Or is this just par for the course and has always been going on, it's just the reporting is different, or the current context makes it more of a sensitive topic?
There have been a few cases where national security has prompted the government to nationalize private institutions: the Railroads in WWI, steel mills in the korean war, CINB which was deemed a security risk by being too large a bank.
This admin has so far acted like a kleptocracy and, like, because of the Epstein files if they lose power many will go to jail, so there's a huge incentive to remain in power.
Wars are good for remaining in power. Dictatorship is good for remaining in power.
This is all very, very, very unusual in US history (except maybe when businesses tried to overthrow the government in the 30s but we don't talk about that).
In my experience they very much do not want to be told what they can and can not do with the things they purchase. I’m surprised the deal got done at all with these restrictions in place.
SpicyLemonZest•1h ago
Sebguer•1h ago
SpicyLemonZest•1h ago
_aavaa_•37m ago
tototrains•16m ago
cyanydeez•1h ago
LarsDu88•28m ago